“permanent establishment”

M/S. BANK OF AMERICAN , N.A,MUMBAI vs. THE JT DIT (I.T)3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

further held that Article 7 of the DTAA ensures that\nlegitimate business expenditure is allowed to be deducted from the profits of\nthe Permanent Establishment in a uniform manner by all member countries.\nThe AO further held that the Act allows a deduction for all legitimate business\nexpenses to arrive ... Model Convention and held that the clauses relating\nto allowance of expenditure relating to business could not preclude the\ncontracting state, where the Permanent Establishment is situated, from\nmaking certain adjustments to the accounts of the Permanent Establishment,\nin order to ensure the correct profits are brought to tax. Thus

THE DY DIT (I.T) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANK OF AMERICA N.A., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

further held that Article 7 of the DTAA ensures that\nlegitimate business expenditure is allowed to be deducted from the profits of\nthe Permanent Establishment in a uniform manner by all member countries.\nThe AO further held that the Act allows a deduction for all legitimate business\nexpenses to arrive ... Model Convention and held that the clauses relating\nto allowance of expenditure relating to business could not preclude the\ncontracting state, where the Permanent Establishment is situated, from\nmaking certain adjustments to the accounts of the Permanent Establishment,\nin order to ensure the correct profits are brought to tax. Thus

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but\nonly so much of them as is attributable to (a) that permanent establishment\n(b) sales in the other State of goods or merchandise of the same or similar\nkind as those sold through that permanent establishment ... other\nbusiness activities carried on in the other State of the same or similar kind\nas those effected through that permanent establishment.\n5.5.4.8. In the appellant's case, Diebold Inc. carried its business on its own\nand entered into the agreement with the appellant

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

latter being taxable as business profits under Article 7 of the DTAA, provided that the foreign, nоп-resident supplier or manufacturer had a permanent establishment ["PE"] in India. Article 7- Business Profits 1. The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless ... enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as 8 Diebold India Private Limited aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOs filed by the assessee stand dismissed

profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but\nonly so much of them as is attributable to (a) that permanent establishment\n(b) sales in the other State of goods or merchandise of the same or similar\nkind as those sold through that permanent establishment ... other\nbusiness activities carried on in the other State of the same or similar kind\nas those effected through that permanent establishment.\n5.5.4.8. In the appellant's case, Diebold Inc. carried its business on its own\nand entered into the agreement with the appellant

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the\nCOS filed by the assessee stand dismissed

profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but\nonly so much of them as is attributable to (a) that permanent establishment\n(b) sales in the other State of goods or merchandise of the same or similar\nkind as those sold through that permanent establishment ... other\nbusiness activities carried on in the other State of the same or similar kind\nas those effected through that permanent establishment.\n5.5.4.8. In the appellant's case, Diebold Inc. carried its business on its own\nand entered into the agreement with the appellant

BOBST BIELEFELD GMBH,GERMANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Ground No.2, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant, being a tax resident of Germany, having no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is eligible to claim the beneficial tax provision under the Treaty. Thus, Ld. AO has erred in taxing the income under ... Ground No.2, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant, being a tax resident of Germany, having no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is eligible to claim the beneficial tax provision under the Treaty. Thus, Ld. AO has erred in taxing the income under

BOBST BIELEFELD GMBH,GERMANY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INT TAX CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Ground No.2, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant, being a tax resident of Germany, having no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is eligible to claim the beneficial tax provision under the Treaty. Thus, Ld. AO has erred in taxing the income under ... Ground No.2, the Ld. AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant, being a tax resident of Germany, having no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is eligible to claim the beneficial tax provision under the Treaty. Thus, Ld. AO has erred in taxing the income under

OWENS CORNING (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT (INT TAX) CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2023-24 Owens Corning (Singapore) Deputy Commissioner Of Pte Ltd., Income Tax (International Tax), C/O. Owens Corning (India) Vs. Circle-3(2)(2), Pvt. Limited, 6Th Floor, 7Th Floor, Alpha Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Bandra Kurla Complex, Powai, Mumbai-400051. Maharashtra-400076. Pan : Aabco5666L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sandeep Bhalla For Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 10-07-2025, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pursuant To The Directions Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, ("Ld.Drp"), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Indian associated enterprises, namely, Owens-Corning India Pvt. Ltd. ("OCIPL"), as non- taxable in India as the assessee claims that it has neither any Permanent Establishment in India as per Article 5 of the India-Singapore DTAA nor any business connection in India. The AO observed that prima facie ... dispute that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the Indo-Singapore tax treaty, that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, and that, accordingly, income earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as business profits under article 7 of the Indo Singapore tax treaty/ There

DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARUN MADHAVACHARI RANGACHARI, MUMBAI

submitted that the money was received by DAR Capital Ltd. and\nThurles International Ltd., which have separate legal identities and do not\nhave any Permanent Establishment in India. The objections filed by the\nassessee were disposed of vide order dated 03/10/2018, and the reopening\nof the assessment in order ... assessee stayed in India for 121 days.\nAccordingly, the AO held that the assessee was using the business\npremises in Mumbai as his Permanent Establishment to carry out his\nbusiness and also to carry on the business for his wholly owned business\nconcern. Thus, the AO held that the assessee

FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX-CIRCLE-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Firstrand Bank Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of C-53, G-Block, 5 Th Floor, Income-Tax, Tcg Financial Centre, Circle-2(3)(1), Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (East)., Mumbai -400051 (Pan: Aabcf1632P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Paras Savla, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram K, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel- 1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2022- 23/1043517868(1), Dated 22.06.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

dated 06.06.2018) where in it 18 FirstRand Bank Limited AY 2018-19 was held that MasterCard had a permanent establishment (PE) in India and that payments received were taxable as business income in India. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, VISA and MasterCard function as payment network processors between issuing ... that both VISA and MasterCard operate from Singapore, and the relevant services are rendered entirely outside India. As such, in the absence of a permanent establishment of these entities in India, the income is not taxable in India under Article 7 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Accordingly, the provisions